Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-10468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Caproni granted the motion, subject to privacy protections for the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from Spectrum under the stated limits. John Doe may remain anonymous and may challenge or seek to modify the subpoena. Spectrum and any other provider receiving a subpoena must follow the notice, preservation, disclosure, and cost procedures in the order.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 alleged that an unidentified person used a particular Internet Protocol address to infringe its copyrights. Strike 3 asked to subpoena the person’s Internet service provider, Spectrum, to obtain the person’s name and address before the usual early-case conference.
The court found good cause for the early subpoena because the requested information was limited and necessary to pursue the case. But it also recognized privacy concerns, including the possibility that the provider could identify the wrong person. The order allowed the defendant to remain anonymous and gave the defendant and the provider time to challenge the subpoena.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion subject to a protective order. The subpoena could seek only the defendant’s name and address, and the information could not be released until the challenge period ended or any challenge was resolved. The information could be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights in this lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:23-cv-10468
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 14, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for alleged copyright infringement. The opinion identifies Doe only through the alleged Internet Protocol address 98.113.220.226. Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena on Spectrum, the Internet service provider, before the conference normally required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The subpoena sought the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address. The court stated that Strike 3 had shown good cause for the early discovery because it sought only a limited set of facts necessary to prosecute the case. The court also identified substantial privacy concerns, including the possibility that the provider could make a false identification and cause embarrassment or annoyance to someone who was not responsible.
Ruling and Protective Order
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion subject to a protective order. The court ordered the following:
- John Doe may proceed anonymously unless the court orders otherwise. - Strike 3 may not begin settlement discussions before serving the complaint without the court’s permission. If Doe initiates settlement discussions, Strike 3 may participate and settle the case. - Within 14 days, Strike 3 must serve a Rule 45 subpoena seeking only the defendant’s name and address. It may not seek a telephone number or email address. The subpoena must include the order and the notice to the defendant. The order also permits a similar subpoena to another internet provider identified in response to a subpoena. - The provider must notify Doe and provide Doe with the subpoena, the order, and the notice within 60 days after service. - Doe has 60 days after receiving notice to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a motion to cancel or change it. The provider may not disclose information during that period. If Doe or the provider files such a motion, disclosure must wait until the court resolves the issue and authorizes disclosure. - If no timely challenge is filed, the provider has 10 days after the 60-day period to produce the requested information. - The provider must preserve subpoenaed information while a timely challenge is pending. - The provider must confer with Strike 3 and may not demand advance payment. If it seeks production costs, it must provide a billing summary and cost report. - Any information disclosed may be used only to protect Strike 3’s rights stated in the complaint.
The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 6. The order addressed discovery and anonymity; it did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.